Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/76

Gamma: Yeah, I know. OK, they make up stories; they try to engage readers. There is no difference so far. But the real value of their stories—the real job is different.
Alpha: I didn’t get it. How come it is all the same, it is all the same, it is all the same, it is different?
Gamma: Look, when the journalist engages readers, he leads them to the facts. The fiction writer engages people with some general feelings or trends or ideas . . .
Teacher: I believe both things can be involved in both genres. The fiction writer can use real events and names while the journalist can talk about some general ideas.
Beta: But they use those differently, I think.
Alpha: How?
Beta: I think the writer uses real facts to put forth his general ideas, and the journalist uses general ideas to put forth facts!
Gamma: Maybe. . . . It is necessary for the journalist to introduce the public to the events happening right away, and he can use whatever he wants to in order to achieve that.
Beta: Hmm. Actually the same thing can happen to the fiction writer too. He can write about the past or the future but imply present problems.
Kappa: Can we say that the journalist is bound to the present in terms of content and the writer is not? People just know that the journalist’s job is to draw them into immediate events. This is like a rule of the game. I think Gamma and Beta said the same.
Gamma: Yes, the writer and the journalist just have different goals.
Teacher: So despite the fact that they both do essentially the same job, their work is judged and valued by readers on different bases?
Beta: This is what readers would think.
Teacher: What do you mean?
Beta: It is simple. If they both do the same work in terms of art— namely, engage their readers in the events they portray—then the public gets involved in the same manner. The public fools itself about the real value of a fictitious story and the real value of a newspaper story.